Sex discrimination cases help to close gender gap

There was a narrowing in the gender pay gap last year thanks to the number of women breaking through the glass ceiling into higher paid jobs and the chastening effect on employers of high-profile discrimination cases.

Although the average man in a full-time job still earns about £100 a week more than the average woman, evidence from the Office for National Statistics showed that the gradual trend towards greater equality continued in 2005.

More generous pay awards for the public sector - where women are better represented in top jobs - helped to push up full-time median earnings for women by 3.9% to £370 a week. With full-time median male earnings up by 2.5% to £472 a week, the pay gap narrowed from 14.5% to 13.2%. In 1998, the gap was 17.4%.

The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for pay equality between the sexes, said the improvement for women was not coming quickly enough, and at the current rate of progress it would take 30 years to close the earnings gap. Kate Bellamy, the society's senior policy officer for economic inequalities, said: "Every thinking person would agree that it's not right for women to be paid less than men - but that's what still happens even after 30 years of equal pay legislation.

"We are calling on the government today to take bold new measures to end the unfair pay gap that causes so many women to be financially dependent on a partner or the state."

The Fawcett Society is seeking compulsory audits to reveal pay inequalities; stronger, well-enforced laws to ensure fair treatment of part-time employees; full sign-up to the working time directive and other steps to tackle Britain's long hours culture - which limits career advancement for women and men's involvement at home - and more flexible working.

Peter Talibart, global head of employment at the international law firm Norton Rose, said the narrowing of the pay gap was the result of several high-profile discrimination cases. "Women who are paid less for doing the same job as a man know that they can bring a strong case against their employer, and an employer who does so takes an irresponsible risk."

The TUC's general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "We welcome the fact that the full-time gender pay gap has narrowed slightly ... But this is no cause for complacency. Part-time women are still as badly paid as ever."

The ONS annual survey of hours and earnings (Ashe) showed that the pay gap between rich and poor grew wider in 2005, and that there was also an increase in the number of people earning less than the minimum wage. When officials divided the workforce up into tenths, it found that those in the bottom tenth saw their earnings go up by 2.3% between 2004 and 2005 while those in the top tenth enjoyed increases of 4.4%.

Mr Barber said: "To lift the quality of life for the lowest paid the minimum wage must continue to increase and in-work benefits should rise in line with earnings rather than inflation."

David Willetts, the shadow trade and industry secretary, said the fact that public sector workers earned more than private sector workers highlighted the unfairness of giving preferential pension treatment to those working for the state. The ONS said median earnings for full-time workers in the public sector rose 4.1% to £475 a week last year, compared with 2.5% to £413 in the private sector.

"[The government] says the public sector gets better pensions in compensation for lower pay," Mr Willetts said. "Today's evidence shows how they now get better pensions and better pay. This shows how wrong the government was to give up on serious reform of public service pensions."

John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development, said: "The Ashe figures indicate that the chancellor can now make a strong case for taking a tougher stance on public sector pay."